The full resolution is as it reads, no one deserves to go to hell,..not even Hitler.

Burden of Proof:

Pro is to affirming, using Logic and Reasoning, that no one deserves to go to hell.

Con is to prove, using Logic and Reasoning, that people can deserve to go to hell. This means that citing scripture can be used as evidence, but is not proof. If the Bible says some people should go to hell, pointing that out does not actually prove this action is logical, fair, or justified.

By Accepting this debate, you agree to the following:

1. Hell is merely the name we give to the concept of unending transcendent punishment after death.

2. The soul exists.

3. Hell punishes sinful souls.

4. God created all souls.

5. 5,000 character limit

6. Round 1 is for acceptance only

You may use whatever religion you wish to justify your position. However, remember that the burden of proof requires you to prove the action of sending souls to hell logical, fair, or justified, so scripture will not fulfill the burden.

I accept this debate and thank my opponent, 000ike, and the viewers for making it possible.

The proposition I will be refuting is this: "No one is deserving of going to Hell".

I not only agree to my opponent's first four statements (and of course the last two), but feel they will only serve to solidly construct a convincing argument for me. As the first round is for acceptance only, the ball is in your court, 000ike. Good luck.

P1: Hell is only justified if we have the free will to choose good from bad.

P2: We do not have the free will to choose good from bad.

C: Hell is unjustified.

P1: Hell is only justified with free will

The common justification for hell is that we choose our actions, and if we choose evil, then we will be punished. However, if I can prove that we ultimately do not have the free will to choose our actions, then hell is all but rational. In short, one would go to hell on the basis that he made immoral judgments while he had the option of making moral judgments. If this option to decide between good and evil is taken away, then hell would be unfair.

“Argument that Free Will is Required for Moral Judgments

The moral judgment that you shouldn’t have done X implies that you should have done something else instead

That you should have done something else instead implies that there was something else for you to do

That there was something else for you to do implies that you could have done something else

That you could have done something else implies that you have free will

If you don’t have free will to have done other than X we cannot make the moral judgment that you shouldn’t have done X” (1)

I believe this particular premise is relatively uncontroversial, so I’ll leave it at that for now.

P2: We do not have the free will to choose good from bad

I offer a deterministic argument in support of this, and ask that readers and my opponent keep an open mind in the process.

All human behavior is governed by external factors. We are who we are, not because we chose to be that way, but because things ultimately beyond our control, made us that way. I am not attempting to say that one cannot change his personality, but the fact remains that the will to change one’s personality is also governed by his own tendencies and externally developed character.

“Children seem to have distinct temperaments almost from birth…Most psychologists agree that such temperamental differences are biologically based and have genetic origins.” (2)

Please refer to Erickson’s 8 stages of psychosocial development:

(3)

You will notice that Erickson’s diagram postulates a positive and negative outcome depending on what events occurred during the respective periods. However, at no point in the development of human character is there an opportunity for active and conscious control over our personalities. Take stage 1 for example, concerning young infants. Whether or not one grows to trust others and gains the capacity to rely is wholly contingent upon whether he received food, warmth, and affection as a child.

“If the parents expose the child to warmth, regularity, and dependable affection, the infant's view of the world will be one of trust. Should the parents fail to provide a secure environment and to meet the child's basic needs a sense of mistrust will result.”(4)

What we do with our free will is governed by who we are, and who we are is governed by what we experience and how we are born. I understand the concern this argument may raise. For we do have the free will to change our personalities once we are adults. HOWEVER, whether or not we change our personality is dependent on our outlook on life, which is dependent on how we involuntarily developed as human beings. The issue of evil ultimately becomes a perplexing domino effect instigated by a series of uncontrollable and uncontainable factors that made us who we are.

Assuming a person has the free will to choose who he becomes, is like expecting a computer to program itself, it’s impossible.

Essentially, your conscious mind can choose good over evil, yes,…but the external factors that shaped who you are will DECIDE whether your conscious mind will choose good over evil.

In Conclusion

Hell punishes the sinful soul. However, there is nothing intrinsic that makes a soul sinful. If man sins, it is due to his upbringing, personality, and all that which governs his mental predispositions. If Hitler were born in a stable, affectionate home, had his siblings not died, had he done well in school, had he passed positively even a majority of the stages of development, who would believe that he would have still grown up to be who he became? “The death of his younger brother Edmundfrom measles on 2 February 1900 deeply affected Hitler. He changed from being confident and outgoing and an excellent student, to a morose, detached, and sullen boy who constantly fought with his father and teachers.”(5) We should ask ourselves, is hell really punishing an evil spirit,… or a victim of life?

To begin, I would first like to refer to my opponent's two very strong premises:
1. Hell is only a justified punishment for a person who has free will.
2. No person has free will.
The conclusion drawn from these two premises is, of course, that Hell is an unjustified punishment for any person.

So, where do I fault in these statements? Ladies and gentlemen of the audience, I find no fault in either of these premises. I wholeheartedly agree with both of them and the conclusion that logically follows.

"What?" I hear you gasp, "Have you receded from the debate? Admitted defeat?" I shall ease your doubts; this is no resignation. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

Everything my opponent has said thus far points to only one logical conclusion: there IS one who is deserving of going to Hell.

Allow me to explain. We have already established that the eternal torment of Hell is an unjust and immoral punishment for all mortal souls to be judged "deserving" of. Therefore, every time a soul is unjustly sent to Hell, it counts as another immoral act toward one being's ever-growing criminal record: the greatest criminal mastermind in history, the one responsible for the creation and continuation of the draconian cruelty and injustice that is Hell, the one who is ultimately accountable for every wrongful sending of souls to this Hell, God Himself!

That's right: by deduction of my opponent's own logic, God is the only being in the universe who deserves His own punishment of Hell. He's the one who created human beings without free will; He's the one who created Hell to punish them for actions outside of their control; and He's the one ultimately responsible for sending them to Hell when it is within His power for them not to.

And God, having free will, is excluded from the problems presented by my opponent's premises. Since God has free will, He SHOULD be held accountable for His undeniably immoral actions and Hell would be a just punishment for Him.

Therefore, as there IS a being deserving of the punishment of Hell, my opponent's proposition is false.

I find the first presumption rather indisputable. God certainly has pure free will. However, it is the second that should warrant close examination.

God: “theoneSupremeBeing,thecreatorandrulerofthe universe.” (1).

By his VERY definition, by such a status, morality and God are intertwined. Morality is the method in which we ought to conduct ourselves in the Universe. So, what method could be superior to the one exercised by he who created it?

I contend that God IS morality. If God exists as the being which decides who does and does not go to heaven, then morality is the board of laws through which one would be accepted in heaven. If a God exists and a heaven exists and a hell exists, then we will act in a way that would send us to one of those places. That method of behavior is referred to as morality…and the degree of morality is measured by how much it agrees with the operations of heaven and the actions of God. In short, God's actions are the definition of that which is moral, so therefore he cannot EVER be immoral. Thus, either God does not do these immoral things we think he does, or our perceptions of morality are wrong.

If Our perceptions of morality are incorrectSo, let’s say that God sends people to hell unfairly. This would mean that all forms of unfairness are moral. Murder is unfair, that would be moral. Theft is unfair, that would be moral. Enslavement is unfair, that would be moral. So, if God does unfair things, then all things that humans do that are unfair are moral. So, this would mean that neither God nor criminals deserve hell.

If Our perceptions of morality are correct

So, let’s say our perceptions of morality are indeed correct. This would then mean that God does not do what we think he does. My opponent would then have to prove that God does things contrary to what the average human would perceive as fair or just. If he cannot prove that God actually does unfair things, or sends people to hell at all to begin with, then neither God nor criminals deserve hell. I must admit, it is rather easy to prove God’s unfairness. However you should remember that this is only 1 of 2 options. If God’s actions do not agree with our sense of morality, then by default, our sense of morality is incorrect.

The only logical conclusion that follows is that no one, not even God deserves hell. God is morality, so he cannot be immoral. If God does things we think our immoral, then we are wrong, and those actions are indeed moral. Otherwise, God does not do them.

ConclusionI, firstly, must thank my opponent for constructing one of the most creative and interesting debates I have participated in. However, I have shown that no human being can deserve to be sent to hell. I then proceeded to show that even God cannot deserve to go to hell. If you accept the option that human perception of morality is incorrect, then my Round 2 argument concerning how hell is unfair, would be invalid,…I understand. HOWEVER, I provided new rationale for why nobody could still possibly deserve hell. I said that, if God is indeed unfair, that means humans are incorrect, and unfairness/injustice is still moral. That means all criminal actions under the sun that are unjust or unfair or cruel, would be permissible, since God leads by example. Then again, if you accept the option that God does not do immoral things to start with, he does not send people to hell, ever,…then my Round 2 argument would stand, and no criminal would deserve hell, and neither would God, since he does nothing immoral.

I have agreed with my opponent on every point he's made up until the third and final round, where he contradicts his previous statements at nearly every syllable.

There are a few points I could go into detail about. For instance, he claims that God is the moral standard by which we measure the actions we "ought" to do. This contradicts his most precious contention that we have no free will, as actions that we "ought" to do implies actions that we "can" do.

But most importantly, my opponent himself asserts "If God exists as the being which decides who does and does not go to heaven, then morality is the board of laws through which one would be accepted in heaven." Therefore, God decides what is moral and what isn't moral, despite our own perceptions. If that's the case, then when God sends a soul to Hell, it IS justified.

Let me explain this scenario a bit more articulately. There are only two possibilities:
1. When God sends a soul to Hell, it is moral.
2. When God sends a soul to Hell, it is immoral.

If the former is true (which my opponent seems to think is the case), then as I've said, Hell IS justified for whichever souls are sent there. If the latter is true, then God is doing an immoral act by sending them there, and deserves the punishment of Hell Himself.

It is logically impossible for those souls to not deserve Hell AND for God to be moral. It is equally logically impossible for those souls to deserve Hell AND for my opponent to win this debate (as it would go against his original proposition).

Finally, I will address the only remaining challenge posed by my opponent: the challenge to prove that God sends people to Hell. I cannot prove this, ladies and gentlemen. At least, not with empirical evidence. However, I need only remind you of my opponent's own definition, that God is "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." [1] It should be patently obvious that God, being the "ruler of the universe", is responsible for everything that happens within it, including the sending of souls to Hell.

Furthermore, even if God DOESN'T send them to Hell directly, He was still the one who gave humans souls (yet no free will), and who created Hell to punish those souls, as explained by my opponent in the first round (the "no free will" bit in the second round).

In conclusion, I find my opponent's proposition to be false.

I thank you, 000ike, for engaging in this interesting debate with me, and the audience for listening to my ramblings.

An enjoyable debate to read, Con's argument was amazingly concise and forceful. That said, I don't buy his argument that creation implies moral responsibility, and I think Pro might have salvaged the debate after Round 2 by arguing along those lines.

The Bible says we all deserve to go to hell. (Rm 3:23). We enter life with the sentence of hell hanging over us, because the first humans-Adam and Eve-rebelled against God (Gn 3). Thanks to them, we are all rebels by nature, and our rebellion is an infinite offense to holy God.
Paul says God "wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1Tm 2:4), and Peter reminds his readers that the Lord is " patient with you, not wanting any to peris, but all to come to repentance" (2Pt 3:9). God is just, but we see that He also is loving. He has provided a way for us to escape punishment in hell. Jesus is the way.

You are both very intelligent men and you both know much about what you're talking on, but I have to disagree with you both. The Bible says, "God desires that no man should go to Hell!" John 3:16 is the most famous scripture for a reason, as it states, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever should believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him!" When God made Hell, it was made for Satan and his demons, but when Adam decided to choose sin, then Adam willingly chose to have the punishment for his sin as well. The wages of sin is death, for to sin is to commit rebellion against God. But that is why God sent Jesus so that no one would ever have to live by the law anymore to escape God's wrath, but now it is by His grace that we are saved through faith. God doesn't want anyone to go to Hell, even though we have all sinned and we all deserve it! I love everyone I know with all of my heart and I do not want them to go to Hell, but we all still deserve it. That is what makes the cross and what Jesus did on it so powerful! Even though we all deserve death and Hell, Jesus came to give life and abundance through Him! So again, you are both incredible men and I pray the best for you both, but the truth is as the Bible says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but all are justified freely by His grace through the redemption of Jesus!" So then we all fall short and sin, and deserve the punishment of it, but our justification is received by the grace of God, given to us through faith in the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus.

You're assuming there's an objective standard of what is and is not a favorable environment. People will receive events that occur in their lives differently. How we act does not come out of our own individual will to act that way, it comes out of our natural tendencies and our shaped personality.

Do you agree that our actions depend on our character?

Now do you agree that our character is built from environment and genetics?

*You could say that we have the power and will to change our behavior, however, don't forget that the will to change one's behavior is ALSO dependent on his character, so its an enclosed circle.

If you answered yes to both questions, it should follow that no one that is "evil" is really evil because their spirit is inherently evil. They would have been upstanding people, had they experienced life in a different way. ...even if you believe that there are inherently evil people, would it not then be God's fault for creating an inherently evil creature?

Reasons for voting decision: This was a one sided debate. The ironic thing about it is pro had more sources, a better layout, and a better presentation of his arguments but con just flat out won without anything extra simply based off of the corner he backed pro into. It was a beautiful sight to see, I'm glad I read this.

Reasons for voting decision: Well this debate actually depends on religion. Some religions can say that you wont die, or you will just be reborn so I just think that this only depends on ones religion.

Reasons for voting decision: The semantic is strong in this one (Con). However, it still did fulfill Con's position almost irrefuteably. However, Pro gets a sources point for having actual sources, even if Con won based on logic.

Reasons for voting decision: Con's semantic-fu was VERY strong. Had Pro made the proposition "No person deserves to go to Hell", we'd have seen a very different debate me thinks, since his arguments were very strong. However, Con flipped it on him using Pro's own arguments. It was just wonderful.

Reasons for voting decision: Both presented themselves very eloquently, Pro supported themselves more with scientific backings and some logic. Con mostly responded with with logical conclusions with very little support.

Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was fantastic in its simplicity and effectiveness. Pro's two arguments were contradictory and he wound up in a lose/lose scenario. Either of his arguments led to the negation of the resolution, which Con explained well.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro's opening case would have been fantastically strong against any normal debater, but Con proved to be anything but normal. Con interpreted the resolution in such a fashion that he turned the Pro's case and simulatenously put him into a double bind: if God is moral, then the souls in hell deserve to go to hell, and if God is immoral, then he deserves to go to hell because he has free will. Con's argument was stronger overall and I thus must negate.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.